Delaying jet decision the right move

Discussion has been impassioned over whether to accept a proposal by Porter Airlines to fly jets at the island airport.

Published on Sat Mar 29 2014

Re: Don’t rush decision on jets, Editorial March 25

Don’t rush decision on jets, Editorial March 25

I find it ironic that while your editorial suggests that Toronto’s wisest course may be to leave the decision on passenger jets at Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport to the next city council after the Oct. 27 election, your business reporter Vanessa Lu quotes Roger Martin, of the Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity, and Carol Wilding, president and CEO of the board of trade, as suggesting that complacent businesses and passive politicians are threatening Toronto’s prosperity.

And with all due respect to Gautam Malkani, spokesperson for the anti-proposal group NoJetsTO whose lawn signs state “Save Toronto’s waterfront” — save Toronto’s waterfront from what? Unless Toronto is faced with surging and uncontrollable rising Lake Ontario water levels or the threat of a major earthquake — or even more likely, a Zombie pandemic that topples armies and governments that could destroy humanity itself — I have several friends who live very close to the waterfront and all seem quite content, happy, healthy and vibrant.

I might have an issue if Porter Airlines was planning on filling their allotted takeoffs and landings at Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport with the Airbus 380 or the Antonov An-225, but until then, as Porter CEO Robert Deluce says; “It’s been quite a full discussion, and I think it’s now time to make some decisions.”

David Honigsberg, Toronto

The ramifications of a hasty decision on the expansion of Toronto’s island airport are too numerous to calculate. The impact of the proposed project will affect our city for generations to come and rushing the approval process to accommodate big business is an abuse of democratic governance.

Racing headlong to ensure that this critical matter is decided upon by a council deemed, by some, as more favourable to the project than the new one might be, is not justifiable.

And, councillors who hope to continue in public service should remember that stampedes can lead to fatal downfalls.

Harry J. Rollo, Toronto

Porter Airlines supporters missed the big picture at Toronto’s City Hall public hearings into allowing jets into an expanded waterfront airport. Ask any resident if jets like Boeings or Airbuses should be allowed at Billy Bishop airport and the answer is, has always been and always will be a resounding no. Ask however, if whisper jets should be allowed and the answer must be absolutely yes.

These are not jets as they are known today. Whisper jet engines, technically known as geared-turbofans, are two to four times quieter than all previous commercial jet engines. They are the first-ever jet engines as quiet as turboprops.

Selling the plan as offering Torontonians easy access to the world is also thinking small. It is the world’s access to it that will transform Toronto, because it will be the only big-city destination in North America with an airport just minutes from the city’s centre, allowing time-saving and money-saving convenience for business and vacation travelers alike.

Most importantly, more than a leap for Toronto is at stake. A quantum leap for Canada is at risk because whisper jets are the future of aviation. To be part of that future, and keep the thousands and possibly tens of thousands of Canadian high-tech jobs now on the line, Toronto needs to do its part.

Think big. Do the right thing. Leap with, into, and upon aviation’s future and please approve whisper and only whisper jet access for Toronto’s waterfront.

Ian Steer, Toronto

By all means Olivia Chow should follow the advice of Bob Hepburn and continue to oppose jets at the Billy Bishop airport. This position combined with her support of light rapid transit will ensure that she receives very little, if any, support from Toronto’s suburbs. This means that she will never be elected mayor of the City of Toronto.

This result would be a really good outcome for the taxpayers of the City of Toronto.

Curt Shalapata, Oshawa

As pointed out in a previous Star article by the president of Air Canada, Porter can fly their jets out of Pearson International Airport and save the taxpayers several hundred million dollars that would be required to modify the Toronto Island Airport (TIA). No jobs would be lost; Porter can still buy their jets, extend their business and stop this crusade to ruin the Toronto harbourfront.

Why does Porter want the TIA for jets? Two major reasons: First, Porter will have a private airport for their own use, locking out competition due to limitations on the number of flights allowed per day and, secondly, the extended runway will allow their Q-400 aircraft to fly at full passenger capacity.

By flying jets out of Pearson, here is what Torontonians will gain: a savings of up to $300 million in tax money (local or federal, it all comes from our pockets), a harbourfront preserved for recreational use that is under major improvement paid again by taxpayers, no increased traffic congestion around the TIA area, which is a major problem now that needs to be addressed, no increased risk to the safety of harbourfront residents from a larger jet fuel depot that could result in a serious accident if one or more of the fuel tanks exploded with a blast wave that would reach the waterfront residential area, injuring people and damaging existing buildings.

This is a no brainer, so why do our two mayors push so hard in their support of Porter. Not because of lost jobs?

Rod Tennyson, Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto

I am an enthusiastic Porter passenger but do not like the idea of jets across the waterfront and all that that will bring. I have been waiting for someone to raise what seems like an obvious solution: move the airport a mile further west.

I can’t be the only one who has noticed the absurdity of driving along the Lakeshore, between the abandoned wasteland that is Ontario Place on one side and the vastness of the Exhibition grounds on the other, only to grind to a halt at the bottom of Bathurst St.?

How expensive would it be to move Billy Bishop airport to Ontario Place, a location with no residential areas close by; vast areas of land that, right now, seem to be under-utilized or abandoned altogether — not to mention the existing access from the Lakeshore to a huge parking lot for passenger drop-off?

Jane Hunter, Toronto

Now that City Council’s Executive Committee has wisely chosen to defer a decision on jets at the island airport until more detailed information is made available from the proponents, spare us the crocodile tears from Porter Airline’s Mr. Deluce, who says he needs a commitment before all the facts are on the table. What hypocrisy!

Paul French, Toronto

The proposal to introduce jets to Billy Bishop Airport should not come back to city council until Transport Canada has confirmed the required safety zones. In the event the safety zones are required to be expanded to the extent suggested by Transport Action Ontario in its recent report, the City should expect to be sued by local yacht clubs and other effected users of Toronto Harbour and by the owners of lands devalued by restrictions on building height.

The value of any City-owned lands in the Port Lands area impacted by height restrictions would also be reduced. City councillors need to have this information before making any decisions that could have potentially significant legal and financial impacts on the City.

Scott Heaslip, Stouffville

I became more sympathetic to the opponents of the Toronto Island Airport issue in a very indirect way. Back in February of 2012, NavCanada changed the arrival flight paths for Pearson International Airport. While I live east of Yonge Street and 15 minutes south of the 401 (nowhere near the airport), I now find myself under a concentrated flight path for Pearson Airport (not Billy Bishop Airport). To those people who support the expansion of the Billy Bishop Airport, try having a BBQ in your back yard with up to 30 flights going directly overhead in a 60 minute period.

Perhaps they can contact NavCanada and volunteer to have their house placed under a concentrated flight path instead. People who have not experienced the on-goiong problems that airports can generate are to quick to minimize the very real concerns that exist and to focus only on the convenience it provides to themselves. Quality of life is worth fighting for and concerned citizens should not be undermined and painted as being hysterical proponents of gloom and doom.

Sally Plumb, Toronto

A number of years ago my wife and I were on a trans-Atlantic cruise and one of its ports of call was Madeira. We spent the day touring the island and one of the points of interest was the Funchal Airport. If my memory is correct, the latest extension of the runway was just being completed, all of the extension being over the ocean. The completed runway was to be 2,781 metres in length with a large part of that over the ocean. The runway surface is at an elevation of 58 metres above sea level.

With that in mind, I wondered if it had been considered to extend the Toronto Island airport with all of the extra length proposed being to the West out into Lake Ontario, which would mean minimum intrusion into the Toronto Harbour, in fact no change to anything to the east end of the runway?

This proposal would also mean that there would only be one construction site, and one connection to the existing runway, not two, which could possibly reduce the costs of construction.

Dean Ross, Port Hope

To listen to Bob Deluce, you’d swear that all he wants to do is improve the lives of Torontonians; convenience of travelling and jobs jobs jobs.

To listen to some of our city guardians, you’d swear that they have forgotten promises of a few years ago never to open the island airport to jets.

It’s shocking to me how our media take the things Bob Deluce says at face value. Let’s be clear. Deluce is by no means a public-minded individual trying to create the best possible future for our city. Rather, he’s a self-interested businessman seeking to enrich himself. His claims regarding the island airport, jets and his expansion scheme are entirely self-serving and should be viewed with the greatest scepticism.

John McLeod, Toronto

The report by city staff regarding the future of the Billy Bishop Airport relies on a system of caps to aircraft movement in order to control the negative effects of a proposed huge expansion of the airport on Toronto’s waterfront.

Billy Bishop was once a small operation for pleasure craft and small charter businesses and City Express, which carried about 500,000 passengers a year. That arrangement was abandoned in favour of now 2.3 million passengers a year. What in fact controls the number and type of aircraft i.e. jets, is the size of the runway. Once the runway is expanded, the numbers will inevitably be lifted, just as they were in the past.

Then the negative consequences that the caps are supposed to control will take effect. The only way to effectively control air traffic and to ensure a healthy, balanced development of Toronto’s waterfront, is not to extend the runway.

Convenience, another factor often cited as a justification for an expanded operation, will be addressed by the Union Station-Pearson rail link, to open in 2015.

There is simply no reason to risk the future of the waterfront. It will be irresponsible to do so.

A.J. Diamond, Toronto

The CEO of Air Canada is absolutely right. When DeLuce talks of Miami and L.A. he really means these are the gateways to Mexico, the Caribbean and in the case of L.A. to China, India and other Asian countries. Pearson already supports these areas.

Why spend money on Porter’s fantasies when the hundreds of millions of dollars (at least) to build the supporting airport infrastructure should go to rapid transit in the GTA.

Gary MacDonald, Toronto

This involves $750 million of taxpayers money being used for the exclusive benefit of one airline. These funds should be used to convert the airport express train into a regular commenter train — LRT or even a subway — we need to relieve the development pressure from downtown Toronto.

Robert Croghan, Toronto

What a joke. I find it laughable the position that Air Canada CEO Calin Rovinescu is taking on whether jets should be allowed to fly into Billy Bishop airport. On the one hand he states that Air Canada would like to expand their access to the airport and on the other, if they cannot get access, then no one should.

He accuses Porter of holding on to a virtual monopoly at Billy Bishop but seems fine with expounding he own self interest, and that of Air Canada, when he went crying to the federal government when United Arab Emirates wanted landing rights in Toronto. God forbid that real competition would have exposed the inefficiencies and price gouging of Air Canada.

And the audacity he has to complain about the costs of infrastructure improvements as being nothing more than government subsidies, when the loss of financial benefits accruing to the public (enhanced service and lower costs) if UAE (and/or others) had been granted landing rights amounts to the same thing.

Further, he states that if Porter Airlines wants to fly jets then come out to Pearson. Rovinescu is missing the point. Most of us don’t want to go to Pearson. The traffic, lineups, security checks and delays are precisely why we people prefer the Island airport.

Get you head out of the sand Rovinescu and start thinking about what’s best for consumers rather than your own self interests.

Steve Craine, Toronto

How long would the American government tolerate Porter and its exclusive jet access from Billy Bishop Airport before it intervened on behalf of its own airlines and either forced it to court on anticompetitive grounds or forced the island airport to open itself to equal (jet) access for other carriers?

Riccardo Sala, Toronto

I agree with Toronto city staff who are concerned about island airport expansion. Porter Airlines says “if you want more destinations and lower airfares, go to porter.com for more information.” But what Porter does not tell us is that they are anxious to proceed with their jet aircraft order. And opening the island airport to Porter jets will only open it to other jets, commercial and private.

We do not need more traffic, noise and pollution. Extension of runways will effect boating and recreational activities along the waterfront.

I live in east Toronto, and seem to live under the flight path. Our neighborhood should not accept more air traffic overhead.

I have flown on Porter and Air Canada from Billy Bishop Airport and it was a convenient and pleasant experience. However, we will soon have a new rail link from downtown to Pearson Airport, which will give us more flight choices.

So, when I weigh the pros and cons of this debate, I see too many negative affects on Toronto residents. And I encourage our city executive council and city councillors to vote against the island airport expansion.

Carole Wilson, Toronto

The pressure being brought by Robert Deluce and by Deputy Mayor Norm Kelly for a quick vote on lifting the jet ban at the city airport has the makings of a costly trap. Here’s how it unfolds: council votes to allow jets, Porter makes non-refundable payments for the jets, council comes to their senses and reverses their decision and Porter sues the city for incurred losses.

This is simply history repeating itself. Back in 2003 cancellation of the island bridge was leveraged by Deluce into a secret settlement from the Toronto Port Authority.

City council should be in no rush to change the current agreement. Deputy Mayor Kelly and others who tout the mantra of “respecting the taxpayer” need to follow city staff recommendations and wait until they have all the information before making a decision.